Hello, CentOS community.
I would like to let you know that a CentOS 7.3 docker image for ppc64le is now available at Docker Hub:
https://hub.docker.com/r/ppc64le/centos/
We proceed investigating CentOS Container Pipeline to include it in CentOS Registry.
On 08/03/17 20:36, Murilo Opsfelder Araújo wrote:
Hello, CentOS community.
I would like to let you know that a CentOS 7.3 docker image for ppc64le is now available at Docker Hub:
https://hub.docker.com/r/ppc64le/centos/We proceed investigating CentOS Container Pipeline to include it in CentOS Registry.
From the project side i think we should look at hosting this as just
another tag rather than its a separate namespace entirely.
What would be involved in getting to that point ?
On 03/20/2017 02:03 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 08/03/17 20:36, Murilo Opsfelder Araújo wrote:
Hello, CentOS community.
I would like to let you know that a CentOS 7.3 docker image for ppc64le is now available at Docker Hub:
https://hub.docker.com/r/ppc64le/centos/We proceed investigating CentOS Container Pipeline to include it in CentOS Registry.
From the project side i think we should look at hosting this as just another tag rather than its a separate namespace entirely.
What would be involved in getting to that point ?
So the way we do this for the other base containers, it would need to be committed into its own branch in https://github.com/CentOS/sig-cloud-instance-images/ in a docker directory as the other builds are done.
It would also need a Dockerfile, and optionally a cppp.yaml file and detached gpg signature of the tarball.
These are done as orphaned branches so that the git repo bloat is mitigated somewhat.
On 20/03/17 18:11, Jim Perrin wrote:
So the way we do this for the other base containers, it would need to be committed into its own branch in https://github.com/CentOS/sig-cloud-instance-images/ in a docker directory as the other builds are done.
It would also need a Dockerfile, and optionally a cppp.yaml file and detached gpg signature of the tarball.
sounds good. By way of next steps then, we need to find a way to build it on ppc8le.
Murilo, have you looked at how the x86_64 ones are done ? could the same process be adopted for ppc8le as well ?
On 03/20/2017 03:11 PM, Jim Perrin wrote: [...]
Hi, Jim.
So the way we do this for the other base containers, it would need to be committed into its own branch in https://github.com/CentOS/sig-cloud-instance-images/ in a docker directory as the other builds are done.
What would that branch be named? `CentOS-7.3.1611-ppc64le`?
It would also need a Dockerfile, and optionally a cppp.yaml file and detached gpg signature of the tarball.
We already have Dockerfile and tarball. If you create the branch, we will submit a pull request.
Which gpg key should be used to sign the tarball? The PowerPC key at https://www.centos.org/keys/#powerpc-key?
Other question, who pushes images to https://hub.docker.com/r/centos/aarch64/? We have not found anything about that. And how we would do that for ppc64le?
We have built the base image using https://github.com/fabianorosas/centos-docker-ppc64le/blob/master/centos-doc... because there are still some pieces missing on the distro.
For now, we can continue building it on our side but the build works on nested kvm virtualization, i.e. running it on any CentOS 7.3 guest should work just fine.
We have not had a chance to look at Container Pipeline yet, we hope to look at it soon.
On 21/03/17 19:55, Murilo Opsfelder Araújo wrote:
On 03/20/2017 03:11 PM, Jim Perrin wrote: [...]
Hi, Jim.
So the way we do this for the other base containers, it would need to be committed into its own branch in https://github.com/CentOS/sig-cloud-instance-images/ in a docker directory as the other builds are done.
What would that branch be named? `CentOS-7.3.1611-ppc64le`?
It would also need a Dockerfile, and optionally a cppp.yaml file and detached gpg signature of the tarball.
We already have Dockerfile and tarball. If you create the branch, we will submit a pull request.
I would prefer to get the build script to produce that, and run it in sync with the other builds at the same time.
Which gpg key should be used to sign the tarball? The PowerPC key at https://www.centos.org/keys/#powerpc-key?
Other question, who pushes images to https://hub.docker.com/r/centos/aarch64/? We have not found anything about that. And how we would do that for ppc64le?
We have built the base image using https://github.com/fabianorosas/centos-docker-ppc64le/blob/master/centos-doc... because there are still some pieces missing on the distro.
whats missing for the process to work the same as the x86_64 image ?
For now, we can continue building it on our side but the build works on nested kvm virtualization, i.e. running it on any CentOS 7.3 guest should work just fine.
i dont see why docker build would need any sort of virtualisation at all ?
We have not had a chance to look at Container Pipeline yet, we hope to look at it soon.
container pipeline will build above the base, for layered images - not the base itself.
On 03/22/2017 12:46 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
I would prefer to get the build script to produce that, and run it in sync with the other builds at the same time.
Yes, that would be ideal. In fact, we built the image using the same script, we just need to alter some pieces of software around it (see my answer below).
Since we need to wait until we get the missing patches in the distro anyway, maybe we could work something out like building on our side or running the script I made?
whats missing for the process to work the same as the x86_64 image ?
We are missing patches in lorax, virt-manager and sig-cloud-instance-build, respectively:
https://github.com/rhinstaller/lorax/pull/149
https://github.com/virt-manager/virt-manager/commit/cd35470e3c55aa64976cd0a9...
https://github.com/CentOS/sig-cloud-instance-build/pull/65
Regarding publishing the image to docker registry, I don't think the same process used for x86_64 would work because ppc images should go to centos/ppc64le. Like Murilo said in the previous email, we couldn't find how aarch64 images are pushed to centos/aarch64, there are still some black boxes we need to understand so that we could do the same for pcc64le.
i dont see why docker build would need any sort of virtualisation at all ?
It doesn't need virtualization, but that's what is being currently used for x86_64, is it not? See:
https://github.com/CentOS/sig-cloud-instance-build/blob/master/docker/contai...
We have not had a chance to look at Container Pipeline yet, we hope to look at it soon.
container pipeline will build above the base, for layered images - not the base itself.
This was meant as future steps, after we have the base image.
W dniu 08.03.2017 o 21:36, Murilo Opsfelder Araújo pisze:
Hello, CentOS community.
I would like to let you know that a CentOS 7.3 docker image for ppc64le is now available at Docker Hub:
https://hub.docker.com/r/ppc64le/centos/We proceed investigating CentOS Container Pipeline to include it in CentOS Registry.
x86_64 has centos aarch64 has centos/aarch64 ppc64le has ppc64le/centos
I am afraid that armhf team will go for armhf/centos/armhf or other thing as it would be hard to decide which way to choose. </sarcasm>
Can we decide on ONE scheme? ONE. UNO, JEDEN, ONE. And let it be centos/OPTIONALARCH for altarchs.
There are tools which are used on both aarch64 and ppc64le. With Docker. One naming simplifies life.
And guys: PLEASE, please (with cherry on top) do "centos:7" possible.
x86-64 has centos:7, aarch64 has centos:latest ;(
On 20/03/17 18:18, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
x86_64 has centos aarch64 has centos/aarch64
these are both correct ^
ppc64le has ppc64le/centos
This is nor an official build, to get it to the official build is why I raised the question.
regards,
On 03/20/2017 02:18 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
W dniu 08.03.2017 o 21:36, Murilo Opsfelder Araújo pisze:
Hello, CentOS community.
I would like to let you know that a CentOS 7.3 docker image for ppc64le is now available at Docker Hub:
https://hub.docker.com/r/ppc64le/centos/We proceed investigating CentOS Container Pipeline to include it in CentOS Registry.
x86_64 has centos aarch64 has centos/aarch64 ppc64le has ppc64le/centos
I am afraid that armhf team will go for armhf/centos/armhf or other thing as it would be hard to decide which way to choose. </sarcasm>
Can we decide on ONE scheme? ONE. UNO, JEDEN, ONE. And let it be centos/OPTIONALARCH for altarchs.
There are tools which are used on both aarch64 and ppc64le. With Docker. One naming simplifies life.
And guys: PLEASE, please (with cherry on top) do "centos:7" possible.
x86-64 has centos:7, aarch64 has centos:latest ;(
I'll push this on the next update for aarch64.
Keep in mind that docker's mult-arch support is hackish at best right now, so this is more an upstream docker issue, but it is a valid point.
-
Fabiano Rosas -
Jim Perrin -
Karanbir Singh -
Marcin Juszkiewicz -
Murilo Opsfelder Araújo